Talk:Ancient Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ancient Greece article.
Article policies
You are invited to join a discussion of the book The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, with the aim to improve this article, as a part of WikiProject critical source examination.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within classical antiquity.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Ancient Greece, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Top This article has been rated as a Top priority article
This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Clarification

An expert needs to check out the Ancient Greece article which has a VERY different date for when Ancient Greece came to an end. (Just call me a stirrer :-)).

Yikes...that should have been redirected here before Gerald started working on it. I see Adam Carr has brought up some problems on the Ancient Greece talk page, so you could check there for the answer, but basically, although there may be many ways to determine the end date of "ancient Greece," 1453 is definitely not the right one. Adam Bishop 14:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that "ancient Greece" also didn't end with the rise of Christianity, especially if were going to discriminate between "ancient" and "Hellenistic", as is done in the table on the main page. It should be something more like the death of Alexander.rmagill 14:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to the introduction, instead of the section, "Chronology". rmagill 14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to merge History of Ancient Greece into Ancient Greece and History of Hellenistic Greece into Hellenistic Greece? Almost all the links point to the shorter titles, but almost all the content is in the longer ones. Most other national history articles have no distinction between the period and its history. - SimonP 16:17, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Both Ancient Greece and Hellenistic Greece are very short, and can be merged with ease. dab 17:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe it would be possible, though I strongly keep my hypothesis that Ancient Greece definetely ended with the rule of the Roman Empiresince their government, economical system, and social system changed, but we can still argue of the AthenianAncient Greece or the Spartan, since they were very different one from another. Cotopimp 15:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Peloponnesian War

This section needs a major rewrite.

"After several years of inconclusive campaigning, the moderate Athenian leader Nicias concluded the Peace of Nicias (421)."

- The death of Cleon might have had something to do with this...

"Nicias was captured and Alcibiades went into exile."

- First problem: this makes it look like Nicias was captured, paraded through Sparta, given a nice farm in the western Peloponnese and died peacefully in his bed. Actually, the Syracusans put him to death (albeit against the wishes of Gylippus).

- Second problem: this makes it look like Alcibiades went into exile because of the failure of the expedition. No note is taken of the events of the night before the expedition set out (the mutilation of the Herms), the politicking surrounding those events, that Alcibiades was recalled to face trial before he ever reached Sicily, and that he went into exile, first in Sparta, then in Persian Asia Minor, to avoid death at the hands of his political enemies back in Athens.

- Third problem: no mention of the other general, Demosthenes.

- Another issue (which doesn't fit anywhere): no mention is made that the Sicilian Expedition lasted until 413 - reading the article makes it seem like it took place quickly over the Summer of 415.

"This was the turning point of the war."

- No it wasn't. Thucydides wants it to be (just look at how he structures his history), but it simply does not fit with historical evidence. Firstly, the war goes on for the best part of a decade after the failure of the Sicilian Expedition. Secondly, the Spartans failed to capitalise on the victory, allowing Athens vital time to rebuild her navy. Thirdly, Athens had the upper hand once Alcibiades had returned. Fourthly, that however badly the war was going, Athens could not lose unless she lost the ability to ship in grain, an ability not lost until the Battle of Aegospotami (where Alcibiades pops up again, telling them not to put their ships there...).


-Bold textActually, Bold textthe Sicilian Expedition is regarded by most historians as the turning point in the 27-year long Peloponesian War. In response to your points, it is quite obvious that had Athens not lost such an amount of man power (possibly 100000 men) or as many ships (possibly 250) or even the city's greatest general, Alkibiades, she would have won the war. Athens would have been guartenteed a quick victory over the rest of Sicily as well, seeing that Syracuse was the only formidable opponent on the whole island. The treasures in Sicily would have amounted to interminable grain amounts and the riches and man power of almost a whole country. For the tedious Pelopenesian War, this would have been quite a grab. You mention that the Spartans did not capitalise on the victory they did receive in Sicily. (It should be noted that the Spartans only sent one man-Gyllipus-to Syracuse. The victory was the Syracusans.)The Spartans are not a capitalising society. They do not possess the necessary mindset to win a victory and the reap the benefits of it. And to your third point, the Athenians never held the complete advantage ever again. She ended up scrounging for ships and was put to the mercy of Sparta's only effective general, Lysander. P.S. Don't undermine the histories of Thucydides.


"The loss of her fleet threatened Athens with bankruptcy."

- This is a rather anchronistic point of view.

"Within a few years the democratic party regained power in Athens and other cities."

- Nice gloss over the Thirty. Perhaps some more detail is due.

- More seriously, the division of Greek history between the 5th and 4th Centuries at 404 BC is rather outdated. The gap between the second and third parts of the Peloponnesian War* in 423 (or 421 if we're going on formalities) - 418 (or 415 if we're going on formalities) demonstrates that there were indeed gaps of several years in open hostilities. The gap between the third Peloponnesian War (418-404) and the Corinthian War (396-387/6) was arguably merely one of those lulls. The Athens-Sparta struggle was the major issue until the King's Peace of 387/6. Perhaps the section should be on the Peloponnesian Wars (including the Cornthian War).

- * there was a First Peloponnesian War 461-446.

Well, you are welcome to fix it yourself...to be fair, this is really just a brief outline, and there are many more details in the Peloponnesian War and related articles (although with your knowledge of these events, you can probably fix those as well, that would be very helpful!). Adam Bishop 20:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Pederasty in ancient Greece. Obviously this is a controversial point (or will become one eventually), & while I'm aware of enough scholarly rumors that this (like homosexuality) was practiced far more openly in Classical times than now, I'm requesting that someone document the known facts about this. (All mentions of pederasty in pre-Medieval times that I can recall off the top of my head date much later than this period.)

And I'm very sceptical that pederasty was practiced to limit population growth. On the one hand, infant mortality, disease, warfare, & food insecurity were more than sufficient to keep population growth low (& I remember reading that when a city was overpopulated, the citizens would choose a number of colonists by lot, & send them off to found a new city). On the other hand, I doubt that the number of adults sexually attracted to children in ancient times was larger than it is now, & also doubt that the ancients practiced birth control to consciously limit population on a significant scale. I would need to see some evidence of that motivation.

2. Isn't the subject of Alexander's exploits irrelevant to this article? A brief account showing how it brought the Greece of the city states to an end, though, is relevant, but as the section now stands, it would be better moved to the article on Hellenistic Greece. -- llywrch 18:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree regarding pederasty, it is a disputed and speculative subject which is based on twisted interpretations taken out of context. Links from here to homosexual discussion pages are irrelevant and inappropriate.

Didn't the democracy end with a vote in -411? Then resinstated in -410 until -405, with Alcibiades's death in -404? -- Anonymous. 11:47, 25 Jan 2005


Exactly how is it possible that Peloponnesian War is a featured article, yet the Peloponnesian War section of Ancient Greece has a boilerplate for disputed facts? Truly, I am at a loss. Eric Herboso 03:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why no mathe subjects

Isn't the punic war part of Greece? Or is it part of rome?

The Punic Wars were 3 battles fought between Rome and Carthage [in 500's AD??] over control of trade in the Mediterranean. The third war was the one between Hannibal, using elephants to cross the Alps and gain advantage of Rome, and Scipio, a great Roman general.

They were in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, actually, and Hannibal was involved in the Second war. Anyway, Hannibal did flee to the Greek world, and Rome was involved in a war against the people shelering him, but this is after the period of "Ancient Greece". Adam Bishop 15:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ancient Greece

³wHAT KIND OF ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE IF YOU WERE A POLITICIAN DURING THE PERSIAN WARS? OR DURING DAILY DAYS IN GREECE? IN ATHENS?

--69.86.162.116 01:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)IN ATHENS, AN ASSEMBLY WAS HELD THREE OR FOUR TIMES A MONTH. POLICIES THAT ARE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSEMBLY WERE DECIDED ON BY THE COUNCIL, A GROUP OF 500 MEN. FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, CITIZENS OF ATHENS WERE DIVIDED INTO TEN TRIBES. --69.86.162.116 01:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ÁÝýÈÓòÙË&ĚßߌØÅøÆœ69.86.162.116 01:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)éíÍÉúÀÂËöÇñßÐðþÞ³²°°01:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)~

Do not grafitti this Talk page and also dont write in all capitals. Turn Caps Lock off! Wizard 109109 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sparta

"In Sparta, the landed artistocracy retained their power, and the constitution of Lycurgus (about 650) entrenched their power and gave Sparta a permanent militarist regime under a dual monarchy. Sparta dominated the other cities of the Peloponnese, and formed alliances with Corinth and Thebes."

No discussion of Spartan historical development can be made without reference to the conquest of the Messenians and the system of helotry. Someone, find a way to work this in! They have many way it can help you with projets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.212.27 (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions from modern genetic analysis

Present day researchers (PubMed, Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain. For questions, please e-mail: aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es) analyzing the genetic heritage of Greeks and Macedonians have concluded:

  1. The genetic heritage of Macedonians is distinctly Old Mediterranean, as are Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians.
  2. Greeks do not fit in the above lineage. They are entirely different.
  3. Greeks have been found to share a genetic lineage mostly resembling that of Sub-Saharan Ethiopians, with almost a dozen identical "quasi-specific" alleles. Genetically, Greeks resemble Ethiopian/Sub-Saharan groups more so than to any other Old Mediterranean group, with data clustering "in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt" [1]

[edit] Regarding the above post, one reader responded by deleting it and writing:

Afrocentric bias
I notice that you systematically promote typically Afrocentric views about ancient Egypt and other civilizations that are believed to have been "Africoid" in Afrocentric circles (Olmec, Sumer, Indus Valley, and even Greece). Your citing of a widely discredited study by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena that claims Greeks are genetically related to Ethiopians is a particularly egregious example of your bias, as the study contradicts all other genetic research on Greeks and has been heavily criticized by other population geneticists (see [2]). Yet you dishonestly cited the article as if it were the only and last word. This is not an isolated occurence; to prop up your self-serving opinions you scour the entire corpus of literature to find a single source that might support your point, and proceed to cite it without mentioning that the views presented therein are not in the mainstream. - Dave Lowen ([62.121.100.26])

That is a hoax you're reading. The actual Spanish research mentions nothing about any "Macedonians", and simply detects that ancient Greeks arrived in the Balkans by 2000 BC. The part about "Macedonians" and "Ethiopians" was added by Macedonian Slavic propagandists who made their own version of the research and spread it on the internet. So it's not an afro-centric view, it's a political propaganda. Miskin 09:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a hoax at all. A very recent study (2006) done by other scientists HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans. confirms the relatedness of the Greeks to sub-Saharans by calculating genetic distances at the DRB1 locus (this study, incidentally, and the Petlichkovski (2004) study, show that the Greek study is indeed cited by other scientists, and not merely northern European White Nationalists and Afrocentrists).

There is no such thing as a "Maceodnian" ethnicity or people. It is pure political propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsourkpk (talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

The article on Greek literature is currently nominated on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Vote for it there, if you want to support the article.--Fenice 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contributor Roylee then responded:

Regarding comments on the study by Spanish geneticist Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, which showed that a large number of Greek HLA alleles -- those genes which are known to determine resistance to disease -- cluster with Ethiopians and sub-Saharan Africans, it is important to note that the Arnaiz paper which deals with Macedonia and Greece is called "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" and published in the magazine Tissue Antigens February 2001, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 118-127, while the article from which Pontikos has extracted his quote refers to a completely separate article which appeared in Nature magazine, dealing with a debate about how Jews and Palestinians are closely related. The quote Pontikos is using does not even refer to the Greek-Macedonian study, but instead another one dealing with genetic differences between Palestinians and Jews. It is therefore nothing less than a deliberate misrepresentation to project personal criticism of a report comparing Jews and Palestinians onto a separate report comparing Greeks and Macedonians, even if some of the data is cross-referenced. As a matter of fact:
  • The highly polymorphic HLA system has been validated as useful for distinguishing and/or relating populations (and individuals) in many papers and in all the subsequent international workshops since the First International HLA Anthropology Workshop (Evian, 1970).
  • HLA gene frequencies correlates with geographically related populations; the existence or absence of gene flow among neighbours may be assessed with the study of HLA frequencies and the corresponding genetic distances. (sources: Genetic relationships among various human populations indicated by MHC polymorphisms. In: Tsuji K, Aizawa M, Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 627-32; and Clayton J, Lonjou C. Allele and Haplotype frequencies for HLA led in various ethnic groups In: Charron D, ed. Genetic diversily of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol 1. Paris: EDK, 1997: 665-820).
  • The HLA system has been shown to be very polymorphic, able to be compared among ethnic groups and useful to distinguish populations (HLA allele and haplotype frequencies in Algerians. Relatedness to Spaniards and Basques. Hum Immunol 1995: 43: 259-68).
  • Scientific articles citing HLA genes as useful forensic to track populations:
Imanishi T, Wakisaka A, Gojobori T. Genetic relationships among various human populations indicated by MHC polymorphisms, in Tsuji K, Aizawa M, Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 627-32.
Clayton J, Lonjou C. Allele and Haplotype frequencies for HLA led in various ethnic groups, in Charron D, ed. Genetic diversily of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol 1. Paris: EDK, 1997: 665-820.
Izaabel H, Garchon HJ, Caillat-Zucman S et al. HLA class II DNA polyhiorphism in a Moroccan population from the Souss, Agadir area, Tissue Antigens 1998:51: 106-10.
Arguello R, Avakian H, Goldman JM, Madrigaij A. A novel method for simultaneous high resolution identification of HLA-A, HLA-B, and HLA-Cw alleles, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996:93:10961-5.
Kimura A, Sasazuki T. Eleventh International Histocompatibility Workshop reference protocol for the HLA-DNA typing technique, in Tauji K, Aizawa M Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 397-419.
Bignon JD, Fernandez-Vif MA. Protocols of the 12th International Histocompatibiity Workshop for typing of HLA class II alleles by DNA amplification by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and hybridization with sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes (SSOP), in Charron D, ed. Genetic diversity of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol I. Paris: EDK, 1997: 584-95.
Imanishi T, Akaza T, Kimura A, Tokunaga K, Gojobori T. Estimation of allele and ha frequencies for HLA and complement loci, in Tsuji K Aizawa M Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 76-9.
Imanishi T, Akaza T, Kimura A, Tokunaga K, Gojobori T. Allele and haplotype frequencies for HLA and complement loci in various ethnic groups, in Tsuji K, Aizawa M, Sasazuki T, eds. HLA 1991. Vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992:1065-220.
Mehra MC, Rajalingam R, Kanga U et al. Genetic diversity of HLA in the populations of India, Sri Lanka and Iran, in Charron D, ed. Genetic diversity of HLA, functional and medical implications. Vol 1. Paris: EDK, 1997: 314-20.
Roitberg-Tambur A, Witt CS, Friedmann A et al. Comparative analysis of HLA polymorphism at the serologic and molecular level in Moroccan and Ashkenazi Jews, Tissue Antigens 1995: 46: 104-10.
Martinez-Laso J, Gazit E, Gómez-Casado E et al. HLA DR and DQ polymorphism in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews: comparison with other Mediterraneans, Tissue Antigens 1996: 47:63-71.
Degas L Dausset J. Human migrations and linkage disequilibrium of HLA system, Immunogenetics 1974: 1: 195—210.
  • Arnaiz-Villena has published a huge number of scientific articles, all dealing with HLA genes and their ability to track population. Only one of the several hundred papers published bearing his name has been "retracted" by the scienitific community (as you may find noted at the bottom of the web page linked here). HLA alleles are race specific. Central to Pontikos' criticism of Arnaiz is the assertion that HLA Alleles are not race specific. Unfortunately for Pontikos, they are, and the scientific evidence for this is overwhelming. See bottom of web page: [3].
In summary: Pontikos' argument is intellectually twisted, leading many readers to wrong conclusions. PubMed already knows about his criticisms, and they already recognize the deception. Unfortunately, many are still falling victim to the distortion. The above information was and is correct and accurate. Sincerely, Roylee
Roylee, I believe you have either not read all of Pontikos refrences on this subject or you just simply chosen to ignore them. Neil Risch, Alberto Piazza and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza clearly site Antonio Arnaiz-Villena false work regarding the Greek-Macedonian study in the Greeks are related to Ethiopians and east Africans found that same article sited on Pontikos site, which can be found in the link below, and I quote Neil Risch:
The limitations are made evident by the authors' extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups. Surely the ordinary process of refereeing would have saved the field from this dispute. We believe that the paper should have been refused for publication on the simple grounds that it lacked scientific merit. Neil Risch
Secondly what you seem to be missing is that accroding to the statement above by Neil Risch, Alberto Piazza and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, they are cleary discredited all of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena HLA genetic marker, in other words his work on the Macedonian-Greeks research too, which btw, is highly suspect since it was also co-written by two FyROMian researchers. ~~Mallaccaos, 13 February 2006

[edit] Note:

PubMed Central (PMC) is the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature.

Does PubMed Central include research that has not been peer reviewed and/or pre-print material? No, PubMed Central does not include any unreviewed research or pre-print articles.

Who operates PubMed Central? PubMed Central was developed and is operated by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a division of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Does any independent group oversee the operation of PubMed Central? The PubMed Central National Advisory Committee, established in 1999, provides independent advice on the content and operation of PubMed Central. The Committee is responsible for establishing criteria for groups submitting material to the system, and ensuring that PubMed Central remains responsive to the needs of researchers, publishers, librarians, and the general public. Members of the Committee are appointed by the Director of the National Institutes of Health from the biomedical and information communities as well as the general public.

Reporting Errors: Citations that carry the tag, [PubMed - in process] or [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] have not yet gone through NLM's quality control procedures and indexing process. It is during this process that errors are identified and corrected. It is not necessary to notify NLM of an error at this stage. However, if the error is still present when the above tags are no longer on the citation, please report it to the NLM Help Desk and include the information below (or as much as possible).

  • The journal name, volume, issue, and page number.
  • The title the of article, or the PMID number (e.g., PMID: 1234567).
  • A description of the error.
  • Your report will be forwarded to NLM's Quality Assurance for further investigation. If a change to the database is warranted, the MEDLINE citation will be corrected. Please understand that due to the large volume of requests we are unable to answer individual error reports.

[edit] Way of Life

Could somebody bring that section back? Why was it deleted?

(anonymous)
isn't the same text under the headings "Society" and "Social structure"? --Wetman 21:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"Society" gave an intro to the section and "Social Structure" talked about slaves and different classes. "Way of Life" talked about the Greek home and daily life. Who deleted it? --24.247.126.44 16:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi! It was removed by a vandal, but I've just restored it. Aldux 22:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

could some one expand on this "The distinguishing features of Ancient Greek society were the division between free and slave, the differing roles of men and women, the relative lack of status distinctions based on birth, and the importance of religion. The way of life of the Athenians was common in the Greek world compared to Sparta's special system." especially the part about woman and importance of religion. P.S. Religion is mentioned one time in this article in the above sentence and "women" or "woman" is only mentioned once or twice more Thanks. (69.139.32.33 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

I agree with Wetman Wizard 109109 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander's Conquests

Did Alexander conquer Arabia ? No mention is given of that. He did conquer some parts like Mesopotamia and Persia, which are today Arab lands.

Red Hot Sheena|talk 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Before the Arab conquests in the 7th century AD (or as the Arabs prefer to call it The Arab-Islamic Liberation) Arabia was the Arab peninsula only. It begun on the land of the Navatean Arabs, that would be Jordan which was not part of Alexander's conquest. He did have a campaign to conquer Arab peninsula set to take place two days after his death Ikokki 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obviate

Could you explain how obviate is correct? The word obviate is a verb, meaning to avoid or go around. Wikt. def. In that sentence, (The obviate cause was the growing resentment of Sparta and its allies at the dominance of Athens over Greek affairs.) it is used as an adjective modifying cause and obvious (an adjective) makes much more grammatical sense. Just a friendly question. pschemp | talk 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well, I guess obviate is not the right word...but whatever the word is, it is supposed to contrast with "immediate", and "obvious" is also not the right word. The immediate cause is one thing, the specific event of Corinth and its colonies, but there is a deeper cause in the background. What's the word for that? Adam Bishop 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
How about "underlying"? pschemp | talk 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I guess that would work. Adam Bishop 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Aren't the third and fourth paragraphs about the dates for various periods somewhat contradicting? --Simonf 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...is the third paragraph talking about how the modern Greeks see it, and the fourth about how everyone else sees it? Adam Bishop 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Years

The intro says this period lasted about a thousand years, but the timeline on the side says it lasted 453 years.

Yeah - well "Ancient Greece" does last for a thousand years. The timeline is wrong really in the fact that what it calls "ancient greece" should be split into "Archaic Greece" and "Classical Greece" - Would anyone object to this change? Pjmc 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In Greek schoolbooks Greek history is divided into
  • Prehistory-Protohistory: up 800 BC (more or less the time oh Homer)
  • Ancient History: 800 BC to 330 AD (foundation of Constantinople)
  • Byzantine History: 330 AD - 1453 AD
  • Modern History: 1453 AD to Today
Ancient History then gets divided into
  • Geometric Era: 800 BC - 600 BC
  • Archaic Era: 600 BC - 479 BC
  • Classical Era: 479 BC - 323 BC
  • Hellenistic Era: 323 BC - 30 BC
  • Greco-Roman Era: 146 BC - 330 AD
The last two overlap. Having an article called ancient Greece that does not include the last 6 centuries of ancient history seems very strange to me Ikokki 22:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--- "Ancient greece existed only for 900000000 years". Someone who knows how long it actually lasted should fix this. 129.97.22.140 20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Rahul

Fixed it, thanks. Adam Bishop 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What are all of the languages of Greece?

[edit] Bibliography misleading?

An editor recently removed the two entries in the bibliography section, leaving an edit summary of "Deleted link for being misleading". I've restored the two entries, but if they are misleading it would be best to discuss the reasons for that here. Robotman1974 01:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Classical Period

While ancient Greece may be loosely termed Classical Greece, the phrase “Classical Greece” or “Classical period” (in Greece) has the very specific meaning of c. 480 to 323 BCE in the fields of Archaeology and Art History. I have noted that there are small articles on the Archaic period in Greece or Hellenistic (period), but that the link Classical period in Greece is redirected to this article. This is a most unfortunate circumstance as the concept of this period as a precise timeframe is in wide use in professional discussions of the art, architecture, and history of Greece. I would strongly urge that this be rectified and that all of the periods be standardized under the format (X period in Greece), including: Orientalizing, Geometric, Archaic, Classical, and (perhaps) Hellenistic. Each of these articles should contain a discussion of the relevant architectural developments, pottery techniques, and brief historical overview - with reference to major archaeological sites and finds. Ideas? --Nefasdicere 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please add the link to Ido Wikipedia

io:Antiqua Grekia. Thanks io:User:Joao Xavier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.0.66.236 (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Vandalism Noted 4-23-07

In the first paragraph: "There are no fixed or universally agreed upon the date of your death for the beginning or the end of the Ancient Greek period." In the second paragraph, date referred to is 2007AD. In the third paragraph, Alexander the Great is referred to as "Alexander the Fat Head". Heatherstory 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd emphasis

Should not we say something about paideia in the following paragraph? And about the Olympics? And the Eleusinian mysteries? Those, according to Pausanians (and Jaeger), and not any of the stuff below, were the true distinguishing features.

The distinguishing features of Ancient Greek society were the division between free and slave, the differing roles of men and women, the relative lack of status distinctions based on birth, and the importance of religion. The way of life of the Athenians was common in the Greek world compared to Sparta's special system.

Haiduc 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a little confused

What exactly linked the various people of Ancient Greece? For most of their history they have been separated into city states, with little national or central government. How did they socially and politically identify each other as Greeks? --Ted87 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They all sacrificed to (not just worshiped) the same gods, gods which fit within the epic tales told by Homer. But being Greek really was something like belonging to any community: you can't claim a right to belong if the other members say that you don't. So, e.g., the Macedonians spoke Greek and had many of the same gods, but were excluded from participating in the Olympic games: the Greeks didn't consider them to be Greeks, though there was some more doubt regarding their exclusion than that of, say, the Persians. This is why Macedonia's participation in the Olympics under Alexander was so momentous, politically: it brought them within the circle of Greek sacrifices. RJC Talk 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. So how was ancient Greece so successful and so well perserved when they were at many times so divided? --Ted87 07:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that the short of it is — they weren't. They did come together to defeat Persia twice, but then they fell into war amongst themselves, at the end of which they were too exhausted to be able to repel Phillip and Alexander from Macedonia. Why, what did you have in mind? RJC Talk 03:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the Macedonians were Greeks (culturally if not "ethnically"), and Alexander's conquests and the ensuing Hellenistic era are the reason why ancient Greek culture got spread around the eastern Mediterranean. Without them Greek culture probably wouldn't have had the world historical importance we assign to it today. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I just thought they kept strong allainces (despite them squabbiling with each other). Then I saw that these city states were very divided. This led to my confusion of how Greece was able to stand when it was had no strong authority between each other. If their are invaders, why weren' they successful in the long run of just picking off one city state at a time (espically if it is a nation with such a strong monarchy/central authority)? --Ted87 06:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Until the rise of the Persian empire, there wasn't a strong need for Greece to stand together. And if I remember correctly, the Persians did pick them off one by one in the beginning (the Ionians). It was just that they tried to overreach and take the entire country at once. At that point, the Greek hegemon (Sparta) could get the other cities into line because of a manifest and common (and foreign) threat. The Persians probably could have conquered the Greeks following the Peloponnesian War, had Macedon not done it first. Then, as Akhilleus points out, Alexander changed the strategic balance of power forever by destroying the Persian empire. (I still don't think that makes him Greek, though) RJC Talk 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So how was it determined who was Greek? If it was mere identity couldn't one city state claim a another people Greek, but another city state deem that they're not? Was the Olympic Games an official crowning? --Ted87 06:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you can call the Olympic Games an official crowning, since that would suggest that a people could become Greek. Before Alexander, the Macedonians were not and never could be truly Greek; after Alexander, it was insisted that the Macedonians were and always had been Greek. It is logically possible that one group of Greeks might recognize someone as Greek and another group not, but this is exceedingly rare within any somewhat stable social identity. RJC Talk 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Thanks. --Ted87 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) That's not exactly true since both Alexander and his father Philip had partaken int he Olympic games. from memory I think his father won in the Chariot race. Phil = friend of, Ippos = Horse. Perhaps it was prophectic that he should win...
Here's a quote of Herodotus (Greek Historian)
"XXII. Now that these descendants of Perdiccas are Greeks, AS THEY THEMSELVES SAY, I MYSELF CHANCE TO KNOW AND WILL PROVE IT in the later part of my history. Furthermore, the Hellenodicae who manage the contest at Olympia determined that it is so, [2] for when Alexander chose to contend and entered the lists for that purpose, the Greeks who were to run against him wanted to bar him from the race, saying that the contest should be for Greeks and not for foreigners. Alexander, however, proving himself to be an Argive, was judged to be a Greek. He accordingly competed in the furlong race and tied step for first place. This, then, is approximately what happened."Applesnpeaches (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greek Women

This article has nothing about Ancient Greek women. How they were treated, what they dressed like, what they did in freetime, and lots of other things could be included in this article that aren't.

    • Yes, I agree! I am trying to find information about Greek women, but that's pretty hard to find besides the fact that they were regarded below men.

[edit] Western Civilization

I understand that when we refer to Western Culture we are speaking about both Europe and the Americas. But my problem with this article is the beginning, "Ancient Greece is generally considered to be the seminal culture which provided the foundation of Western Civilization." I disagree because everything the Greeks started was already in use in Ancient Egypt. I agree if the article read "It is generally considered to be the seminal culture which provided the enhancement of Western Civilization created by Ancient Egypt." At this time I don't have any concrete proof but i am working on it.

I disagree. Egypt is incomparably sparse in its mythologies, while Greek mythology can certainly be called seminal as regards the evolution of Western civilization. Furthermore, and perhaps far more important for Western civilization, ancient Egypt never made an attempt at democracy.rmagill 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Protected?

I'm curious as to why this article is semi-protected. I can't find anywhere that states a reason, nor is it tagged with a reason in the protection template. --Matthew 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Protection Log:
23:20, 18 April 2007 ChrisO (Talk | contribs) protected Ancient Greece (Incessant vandalism following end of previous semi-protection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)))
--Matthew 12:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe - Autosomal markers

AncestryByDNA, using autosomal markers, mentions that the average Greek/Italian type with approximately 5% sub-Saharan genetic material and is the highest in Europe with Iberia (6.6%). By comparaison Euro-americans get 3% and Northern European < 1 %. Even though in some cases with respect to certain population groups, for an individual, a low reading such as this may be negated by the confidence interval, in south european countries low levels of sub-Saharan admixture are consistenly found, making them signature results for these populations. This means they are not stastical "noise," but true results.

[edit] Athens and Sparta

As a high school student, it seems that Athens and Sparta are considered separately in most textbooks and think Wikipedia should consider doing the same. I think that putting the history of Athens, usually associated with the Golden Age of Greece, and Sparta, usually associated with a constant state of war, in one article makes the article confusing and difficult to follow. Separating it would make it easier to find information and make the article as a whole more reasonable. Potato dude 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is like Rome

It's too big for its own good. The end result is that it contains a ton of information, but most of it is unsourced, NPOV, possibly repetitive, etc. A rewrite may be a good idea. W1k13rh3nry 01:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This page needs a lot of work. It needs an incredible amount of references and a huge deal of internal wikipedia links. I added a "See also" section as a start, linking to Art in ancient Greece and Ancient Greek religion, two key issues, among so many more. I'm not sure what should happen to this article, to be honest. I'm not sure should it give a potted historical summary, or should it just generally explain the concept and importance of "Ancient Greece". and link to more detailed discussions of history, archaeology, art, architecture, religion, philosophy, literature, mythol

[edit] This article reads like it was "written" by american school students

Seriously. Some passages read like they were written by American 5th graders. I know for a fact that American schoolteachers encourage their students to write in Wikipedia, and since Ancient Greece is a favorite topic in the American school curriculum, this seems to be the end result. There so many literally infantile and inane sentences that they are too numerous to mention. Here's one such "gem", from the "Living" subsection:

The Greeks lived around the sea and they could develop there because of trading with near countries and islands. Trade was very important in their life. They also lived between mountains but the mountains blocked a way of trading with near cities.

This is also evident from the discussion section, which contains simplistic questions like "What were ancient greek people like?" and similar inane crap. It seems to me that this article has been badly neglected by professional Classicists, while in the meantime hordes of school age students have run amok all over it. It is in need of a major cleanup and overhaul at the very least. It also is by far the most frequently vandalized article on my watchlist.--Tsourkpk (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yia sou, Tsourkpk. I've seen your comment on Talk:Ancient Greece and I agree (as you can see from my comment right above yours). The topic is too important to be left in this state. I didn't know what you say about schoolkids being encouraged to edit, but the daily experience of watching this article strongly suggests you are right. Alas, I am not a professional classicist, are you? Also, I think that the article is a task that might require some time, some discussion, and a team of authors who are willing and able to contribute. They'd have to agree on a series of sections, prepare them on their own sandboxes (with references), and then overhaul the article in one go, and watch it ever after... Should it be, in your opinion, a long essay on Ancient Greek civilisation as a whole, or perhaps a series of shorter introductions, linking to the more detailed wikipedia articles on the relevant topics? Is there anyone else out there who feels this needs attention? athinaios (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Γειά σου Aθηναίε. I'm glad to see you agree with me. This article is arguably one of the most important ones for Greek civilization, and it should be top-notch. It is a real shame it has been so badly neglected. Unfortunately I am also not a Classicist and it seems this article is in such bad condition that it will be a MAJOR effort to improve its quality. I am not a particularly experienced Wikipedian, but I like the approach you mention. I am not sure whether to go for a single long essay or something broken into subsections, although I lean toward the former. I propose bringing it up for discussion in Wikiproject Greece, to get other people interested. Either you can do that or I can. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pushed whether it's you or me. I'm quite busy with my real-world activities these days, deadlines looming and all that, but I'd be happy enough to have some role in this. If you veer towards a long essay, we'd better find a single author (probably neither you nor me, or would you want to try?), as it might otherwise end up too fragmented. I agree that this article should be a good one, but I don't think it has to be one of the most creative ones, as it should lead on to links to much more detailed information. I think a good outline, with some hints of analysis, placing ancient Greece and its importance in their proper context, plus useful links, is what this needs. In other words, the casual reader should see "Ah, that what ancient Greece is about", "oh, that's why it's important" and "ooh, I can also look at wikipedia articles on philosophy, art, myth, literature, history, etc". athinaios (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, this is a classical candidate for a WP:SS article. It doesn't need to be brilliant, it needs to be well a organized index and a competent, unexcited overview. Invest your brilliance in the various sub-articles. At present, it certainly isn't great, but it is better than it used to be. It could do with more loving attention to be sure but's every editor's own decision where they invest their time. There are certainly also many important sub-articles that would badly need competent attention. dab (𒁳) 09:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC) ogy, language, ans so on and so on. athinaios 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Aθηναίε, I already brought it up for discussion on WikiProject Greece, and our suggestion was warmly received, so I think we should see some improvement over the next coming days. I also agree with you in that is should be especially important that the article should make the importance of Ancient Greece obvious to the casual reader. That said, I also agree with dab that this is a candiate for WP:SS. In any case, hopefully we should some improvement soon. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

This article covers "Ancient Greece", viz., 8th to 2nd centuries BC. There can be the briefest of references to Proto-Greek, "The coming of the Greeks" (origins of the Greeks?), Helladic period, Mycenaean Greece and Greek Dark Ages for context, but these topics are ostensibly not within the article scope. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that we'd probably be best concentrating on 6th-4th century B.C. That's the best known and best understood period. There's an Athenian bias in the surviving sources, for a general article, I suppose we may as well keep that to some extent, giving more space to Athens, as long as we explain the importance of the other cities. Adam Cuerden talk 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
One would probably end up mostly doing what Adam says in any case, but I don't think it would be a good idea to deliberately avoid the Geometric and early Archaic, as well as the Late Hellenistic periods, as they're all important for context. Luckily, the Athenian bias only applies the written sources. Incidentally, it's doubtful that the 6th century is better understood than the 2nd. athinaios (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the bulk - say, something over a half - should be 6th to 4th century B.C. After the death of Alexander the Great and Aristotle, I don't think there's anyone famous except maybe Ptolemy, if he even counts as Greek (may be forgetting someone, of course), but in the 6th to 4th centuries? Herodotus, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Euripedes, Socrates, Plato, Sophocles, Thucydides, Pericles, Euclid, Pythagoras... and such famous battles as Thermopylae, Marathon, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's also the period that created most of the Greek texts that were used in the Renaissance to reconstruct academia. I certainly don't think we should leave out other periods, but I think we'd be fully justified in giving a lot more space to it. Adam Cuerden talk 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Euclid is 3rd century BC. And what about Archimedes and Plutarch? You may be right that the bulk of the article should be the 6th to the 4th, but it's not as if nothing happens in later centuries. And where is Roman Greece supposed to go, anyway? The sidebar implies that it's a sub-article of ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
yes: the 5th to 4th centuries are the scope of the Classical Greece article. This article here should be considered the {{main}} article to all of the Archaic period, Classical period, Hellenism and Roman Empire period Greece (750 BCE to 330 CE). --dab (𒁳) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is what you get from taking a course entitled "5th century Athens" Do know a fair bit about Dark Age Greece from my archaeology course, but I know very little between Alexander the Great and Julius Cæsar. Adam Cuerden talk 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

that's right. It will be WP:SS in any case. I also think the "Athenian bias" is overstated. My comment was referring to the "Origins" section dabbling in deep prehistory, Proto-Greek and the "Greek genome". These topics do not belong here, a link to Prehistoric Greece and Greeks must suffice. dab (𒁳) 11:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that the Turk and Greek nationalists fight it out in these pages, which is probably why the sections on origins and the Greek genome receive such attention. RJC Talk 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
of course. At least the Turkish and Greek nationalist trolls tend to cancel each other out. You should see the state of the articles that were run over by nationalisms unchecked by their respective counter-nationalisms... dab (𒁳) 17:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's consider topic categories: I suppose the obvious broad categories are Literature, Theatre, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, Politics, and Military. Of these, we cover... um... maybe Military, though not well.

Dooooomed! Adam Cuerden talk 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well to be fair, those topic categories are mostly summarized and sent to their own article. But yeah, this article is in dire need of referencing. El Greco(talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What about this. Introduction (concept & importance of "Ancient Greece"). Sources and nature of sources: Literature (contemporary and later), art, archaeology. Historical outline, roughly: early background (Geometric), then Archaic (including colonisation), Classical, Hellenistic (stressing spread to East), note on Roman Greece (and Greek Rome). Then individual topic summaries: Social/political issues (city state, democracy, Sparta, slavery etc), short section on economy, Religion/myth, Literature (Epic poetry, Lyric poetry, Historiography, Drama, Fiction), Philosophy, Science (including maths, geometry, physics, zoology etc, but also inventions/technology), Art (sculpture, vase painting, panel painting, wall painting, metalwork) & Architecture (temples, public buildings like theatres and such, domestic houses, defensive architecture). Finally, short section on later reception (renaissance, Greek revival, Classicism, modern Greek foundation myths etc etc). athinaios (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. How much discussion of mythology should be included in Archaic Greek, though? I mean, there's some things that were probably based very loosely on fact, e.g, the Iliad, but, on the other hand, it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Adam Cuerden talk 05:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not the point. Whether the Iliad is based on fact or not should be left for other articles to sort out. Mythology should be summarised in this article simply because of its role in influencing Greek thought and beliefs. athinaios (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds good. It boils down to mostly fleshing out and trimming the existing article structure. Mythology should be summarized in a "religion and mythology" section, with {{main}} articles Ancient Greek religion, Greek mythology, Hellenistic religion and Hellenistic magic. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minoans

I am removing the ref to the Minoans in the overview since they were not a Greek people but a separate (according to Britannica Anatolian) IE people. The Greeks of Homer's time called their descendants Eteocretans, the "Real" Cretans to distinguish them from the Greeks.Xenovatis (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

I was going to WP:BRD that section but I think it should be discussed. I believe

1. The description form a Greek student based on Greek school textbooks should be substituted with one from a WP:RS. 2, The image be moved to the section below. Thanks for your inputs. Xenovatis (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hades as an "other sicnificant being".

Why is Hades under "other significant being" in the mythology section? Shouldn't it be under the Olympians? --E123 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If I recall, Hades' classification changed over time. While he was the brother of Zeus, sacrifices were made to him as though he were an Chthonic god. He doesn't live on Mt. Olympus, but rather beneath the earth. RJC Talk Contribs 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improved Structure

This article does seem to have become a lot better; and is much more useful as a page to navigate around the various topics. I have added a warfare sub-section within the society section - mainly to link to articles describing the way in which the Greeks made war, rather than the military history. I am also going to change the 'Ancient Greek Assembly' sub-section to 'Government'. The current sub-section describes only the Athenian assembly (though referring to it as 'Ancient Greek'), and is completely out of place. I will replace it with a short description of types of government seen in ancient greece, linking to all the appropriate articles. If any one has any comments, please let me know! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a bit carried away, and I've edited quite a lot of it now. I mainly want to bring the coverage to the same depth all round, rather than having lots of detail in some places, and none in others. I shall keep going... MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job. The article has improved very much since last November. athinaios | Talk 22:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)